I know you went on the related article on answersingenesis.org (I go on creation.com though, but it is the same article. I'm putthing the quote from Ussher here for those who didn't:

quote:When Antigonus, surnamed Gonatas, the son of Demetrius Poliorcetes, heard how Seleucus was murdered, he made an expedition into Macedonia. He planned to get there before Ceraunus could, with his army and naval forces. However, Ceraunus had all Lysimachus’ fleet in readiness, and set out and met him in a good battle formation at sea. In his navy, ships were sent from Heraclea in Pontus, some of six, some of five tiers of oars. These kinds of ships were called “Aphracta”. The largest ship of all had eight tiers of oars and was called the Leontifera. She was admired by all for her large size and exquisite construction. In her were a hundred oars per tier, so that on each side there were eight hundred rowers which made 1600 in all. On the upper deck or hatches there were 1200 fighting men who were under two special commanders. When the battle began, Ceraunus won and Antigonus was forced to flee with all his navy. In this fight, the ships from Heraclea performed the best and among them the Leontifera did the best of all. …

Do you have any contrary evidence that the Leontifera did not participate in this battle ?

Please provide evidence that it was in the battle. As I said before Ussher is the only source known. You should not speak in absolutes if you do not have solid evidence.

Is this James Ussher, Prelate of all Ireland? Is this the guy who claimed that the earth was created at nightfall on 22 October 4004 BC? I think that anything he might have to say about battleships in the Aegean is highly suspect, I mean, given his track record with the age of the earth.

There is no evidence for it all besides Ussher. Critical historical analysis never takes just one source. There needs to be some corroborating evidence. Without multiple sources it is just a tale an anecdote. Nothing more.

Yes it is the same Ussher. Creationists think he is a great historian that shows all of their ideas are true. His history was written to confirm the bible. It is not now and never has been thought of as an objective history. The purpose of his "Annals" was to provide evidence for his idea for the age of the earth. Though he got a lot right, he did do some embellishments in order to get his dates to work out. As I said earlier, we need the original source material and we have to look at to see if the original source is reputable. Ussher was not clear what his source for this was. Without any corroborating evidence all it is is a nice story. Nothing more.

Jules Vernes stories are nice stories too. But in the future historians will not think they are true because there will be no other sources for the fantastical things in them. A 400' war galley should have some corroborating evidence for its existence.

Are you suggesting that since he put a date on Creation (as did Newton, mind you) you have to throw out everything he wrote about history ?

As I remember Newtons most famous work was testable and scientifically accepted. There are other sources that confirmed what Newton wrote.

Now do you want to talk about Newtons true love, alchemy? So yes, I would throw out all of Newton's work on alchemy.

Therfore, yes I would do what you suggest. Anything that can not be corroborated, Newton's alchemy, Usshers big boat, should be put aside until there is corroborating evidence for either off them. Now the parts of both their works where the is evidence form other sources, yes I think we should seriously consider them.

Nothing is sacred. Now days quantum mechanics has shown Newton to not be correct to some extent.

Or just the parts that implies that an ancient civilisation were capable of building bigger wooden ships than Victorian shipbuilders ?

Also, a point you fail to consider or acknowledge is we are not talking about 200 BCE. The Ark would have been a much earlier time. It would be bronze age and built by a man and his sons. The galleys you are talking about were built with all of the resources of kingdoms, with the latest in ALL technology available to them. Technology that did not exist when Noah would have built his big boat. Your argument is that Noah had the resources and technology pf the Ptolemy's. Even if these galleys were as big as you claim, the argument gives absolutely no support for anything about Noah and his big boat. None at all. You are building a a false argument.

Using this argument, the US Navy during the War of 1812 could have had an aircraft carrier. I can show aircraft carriers existed in WWII and now, so there is no reason there could have not been one during the war of 1812.

Do you get a sense of how ridiculous your argument is? Because yours is even more ridiculous. It would be like saying a family on the coast of Maine, could have built an aircraft carrier in 1812.

As I remember Newtons most famous work was testable and scientifically accepted. There are other sources that confirmed what Newton wrote.

Now do you want to talk about Newtons true love, alchemy? So yes, I would throw out all of Newton's work on alchemy.

Therfore, yes I would do what you suggest. Anything that can not be corroborated, Newton's alchemy, Usshers big boat, should be put aside until there is corroborating evidence for either off them. Now the parts of both their works where the is evidence form other sources, yes I think we should seriously consider them.

Nothing is sacred. Now days quantum mechanics has shown Newton to not be correct to some extent.

Of course, and I agree. But note that the Pliny lists ancient ships with up to thirty levels of rowers existed. Is it then unreasonable to think that the Leontifera, with its 8 levels of rowers, did exist ? and that it did partake in a battle in the Aegian sea, as Ussher describes ? Remember that, we can never be 100% certain of the accuracy of any ancient document. But as with standard historical research, whenever a document purports to be giving sober history, one trusts the document in the absence of reasons to believe it is a fabrication.

Also, a point you fail to consider or acknowledge is we are not talking about 200 BCE. The Ark would have been a much earlier time. It would be bronze age and built by a man and his sons. The galleys you are talking about were built with all of the resources of kingdoms, with the latest in ALL technology available to them. Technology that did not exist when Noah would have built his big boat. Your argument is that Noah had the resources and technology pf the Ptolemy's. Even if these galleys were as big as you claim, the argument gives absolutely no support for anything about Noah and his big boat. None at all. You are building a a false argument.

Using this argument, the US Navy during the War of 1812 could have had an aircraft carrier. I can show aircraft carriers existed in WWII and now, so there is no reason there could have not been one during the war of 1812.

Do you get a sense of how ridiculous your argument is? Because yours is even more ridiculous. It would be like saying a family on the coast of Maine, could have built an aircraft carrier in 1812.

Hey there, Mr. Strawman, care to look back at what I really said ?

The original post was never about if Noah and his family could have done the ark all alone, or if they would have had all the ressources necessary, or the technological knowledge necessary.

The original post was about the physical constraints of building a ship of that length totally out of wood which, by its physical properties, puts an upper limit to the length a wooden ship can have, and that this limit is under the length of the Ark. My response was only about this: that the physical length-limit imposed by the material (wood) is at least as long as the Ark, given that the ship in question is well-engineered. And that better wooden ships that what the Victorian shipbuilders managed to do had been done in ancient times.

Either it is or it isn't a window. Exactly what do you think a window is? And somewhere in you confusion about the window/opening for illumination you come up with ventilation.

i was showing you what the hebrew word meant...Some scholars think tso′har is related to light and so they translate it “window”

it doesnt mean it had glass in it. It was an opening, therefore it let in light and air.

pandion writes:

The real question is whether or not you have read it. Since you keep making up so much about the story that just isn't there, it would seem not. The "resinous tree" part is from a non-standard translation. No one knows what "gopher" wood was so it is a bit disingenuous to claim that "resinous tree"

Hebrew words are built from root words. The hebrew word used in the account, 'Gopher' belongs to a family that includes 'Pitch' (ko'pher) on the basis of this, many believe the tree to mean a resinious tree because the word Gopher is from the same root word meaning resin.

there is no making anything up...the hebrew words provide their own conclusion.

Remember that, we can never be 100% certain of the accuracy of any ancient document. But as with standard historical research, whenever a document purports to be giving sober history, one trusts the document in the absence of reasons to believe it is a fabrication.

According to what standard of historical research?

The original post was never about if Noah and his family could have done the ark all alone, or if they would have had all the ressources necessary, or the technological knowledge necessary.

The post is that we have no historical reference for a boat that size that could survive forty days of stormy seas. The building of the boats is a necessary premise of the OP. It is ridiculous to make the argument that the Ark was possible if you cannot account for how any possible comparisons were built.

quote:From the same period the early Church Father Origen (c. 182–251), responding to a critic who doubted that the Ark could contain all the animals in the world, countered with a learned argument about cubits, holding that Moses, the traditional author of the book of Genesis, had been brought up in Egypt and would therefore have used the larger Egyptian cubit...

Again strict comparison of strength is not really possible as it should be based on the of the skin of the vessel interpolated over it's length, both vertically and horizontally, and then compared to sagging load (when bow and stern are lifted by waves) and hogging load (when midship is lifted by waves).

quote:So....the Ark just porously floated atop the water? All 3-500ft of it?

Assuming it's made from a material less dense than water (ie: most woods) then of course it doesn't matter how big it is - it'll float

quote:With thousands of animals inside?

Why not? Empty, a woven balsa vessel would barely 'dent' the surface of the water. As you load up it'd sink lower and lower into the water. A point would come when it sinks low enough to submerge the lowest stored animals (because the water level rises inside the ark). At which point you've reach max capacity.

The material a boat is constructed from has absolutely no effect on whether the boat will float or not.

The key term is displacement: a boat will ride at the elevation where the weight of the water displaced by the boat is equal to the weight of the boat and contents.

If you treat the ark as a leaky raft, with the only displacement coming from the wood timbers and not from the shape of the hull, then you have significantly less displacement.